🚀 go-pugleaf

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3416066309_957679
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

Abracadabra,  No More Medi�val Warm Period!

The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick

October 5 2009



QUOTE: when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader
dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately
dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant
trend in the 20th century whatsoever!



QUOTE: Let's get real - even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on
what caused modern warming.



QUOTE: alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced
that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the
missing hot spot,  laughably  mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2
/Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly
obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.









For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the
majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and
regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large.



But in the past week or so, it's become more apparent than ever that those
who've accused the international organization of politicizing science and
manipulating data have been right all along.



This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite
propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous "Hockey
Stick Graph."



The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium's
global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has
been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented
and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).



Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to
languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as
gospel by all manner of proselytizers.



In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN
compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that
promise to be the Hockey Stick's (HS) long overdue epitaph.



And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart's fraudulence, but
also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders and
leading UN sponsors.



But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is
in order.


The Real Inconvenient Truth

Prior to the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the accepted depiction
of the prior millennium's warmth was that published in the panel's 1990
maiden assessment. Specifically -- global temperatures had fluctuated
drastically over the period. This schematic, taken from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c,
clearly demonstrates the IPCC "consensus" of the time:







And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice
cores and historic documents bear that position out.



Indeed, it's abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended,
over 14,000 years ago, the Earth's climate has undergone multi-century
swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable
rapidity.



And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past
millennium.


The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP),
as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the
previous epoch -- the Dark Ages -- to levels several degrees warmer than
today.



A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850.
This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures,
corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest
temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three, The Maunder Minimum
1645-1710.



And then began the modern warming period, which, by the way, many scientists
believe ended with the millennium itself.



Given these natural shifts over the past 1000 years, it's certainly not
surprising that after a period of cooling, which followed a period of
warming, we'd again enter a period of warming.



And that, of course, presented quite the quandary to opportunists hell-bent
on blaming warming on industrial revolution-triggered atmospheric CO2
increases.



Something had to be done to convince the world that modern warming was
unprecedented and could therefore only be explained by something unnatural,
specifically -- the "Greenhouse Effect."


And something was.


The End of a Warming Era



During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma
geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled "an astonishing email from a major
researcher in the area of climate change" who told him that "we have to get
rid of the Medieval Warm Period."



In June of this year, piece, Deming identified the year of that email as
1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month's Global Climate
Change Impacts in the United States report.



Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck - which Prof. Deming didn't
deny in an email response -- who would later also serve as an IPCC lead
author.



So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed "get
rid of the Medieval Warm Period," was featured prominently in the subsequent
2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the
highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political
attention.









This, the original and by far most ubiquitous version of the HS graph, was
derived from a 1998 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm
K. Hughes (MBH98).



It was promptly met with challenges to both its proxy data and statistical
analysis methodology.



Of these, various papers by two Canadians -- statistician Stephen McIntyre
and economist Ross McKitrick -- stood out in dispelling the AGW-supporting
hockey-stick shape arrived at by MBH, claiming it the result of severe data
defects and flawed calculations, particularly an invalid principal component
analysis.



In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists
tendered a handful of supporting studies.



Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or
supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the "Hockey Team."



And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith
Briffa of Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs,
derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as
supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th century
warming.



While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published,
congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupported
by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa's.



Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on
principle.



Which in no way dilutes this plain truth:

By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria
in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient
Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof
of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of
science.



Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4) -- notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as
lead authors - give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from the
SPM?


It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors.



That is -- for the moment.


Desperate Times Call For Disparate Actions



Given the current economic and political climate, it's not surprising that
the globe's climate ranks dead last when Americans are asked to name the
"most important issue facing the country right now."



Needless to say, that's an uncomfortable position for the Greenhouse Gas
Team, what with a Senate Climate Bill promising even more government control
than its House counterpart at the plate and the December Copenhagen Climate
Summit on deck.



Accordingly, on September 24th, in a transparently desperate effort to stoke
the coals, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its
Climate Change Science Compendium 2009.



The eco-plea opens with these words from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:





"The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is
happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see
catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine,
and the loss of up to a third of the world's plant and animal species."



Amazing.



But the frantic hype of this call-to-pointless-action quickly segues to
blatant lies just three sentences later when Ban states "that climate change
is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by
scientists."



It would appear the Sec-Gen believes that the cooling temperatures the new
millennium issued in have somehow escaped everyone's notice.



Imagine the uphill battle he'll face should predictions of the U.S.
Northeast suffering its coldest winter in a decade due to a weak El Nino
come true.



So it wasn't all that shocking to spot this undeniably dramatic graph on
only the fifth of this end-is-near report's 75 pages.



The striking chart is marked as Figure 1.3: Correlation between temperature
and CO2.  As its title suggests, it attempts to plot atmospheric CO2
concentrations and mean global temperature during the past millennium.



Notice anything vaguely familiar about the temperature plot in red?








Why, it's our old friend, Mr. Hockey Stick - apparently having sat for a bit
of a makeover.



Interestingly enough, this reconstruction wasn't lifted from prior IPCC
assessments, or, for that matter, any UN entity at all.



No, the source was actually a graphic posted to Wikimedia in 2005 by Hanno
Sandvik, a Norwegian research biologist.  Sandvik cited two data sources for
his temperature plot - a 2004 paper by Jones and Mann (abracadabra - no more
MWP) for 1000-1880, and, for the remainder, "instrumental records published
on the web" by Jones, Parker, Osborn and - wait for it .. Briffa.



So the chart the UN climate experts used to sell the CO2 -�C connection to
an increasingly skeptical public was pulled from Wiki, crafted by an unknown
biologist, conveniently ends about the same year warming ended, and based on
a debunked temperature reconstruction.



It would therefore appear they consider Sanvik quite the unsung authority.



Yet I wonder whether these geniuses are aware of this 2006 graphic, also
from Sandvik, and plotting northern hemisphere temperatures over the past
2000 years.



This one cites 2005 data published by Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko,
Karl�n, and Lauritzen as its source and paints a somewhat different picture.
Hello MWP and LIA, where've you been?















Any guesses whether or not UNEP would have used Sandvik's chart had his
temperature dataset been from Moberg et al. rather than Mann et al.?



I contacted Hanno Sandvik a week ago last Saturday and asked him essentially
that same question.



He responded that he was unaware of the UNEP Compendium and therefore had
"no idea which graphics they may have chosen."  He also pointed out that
while Mann's was global data, Mobergs was northern hemisphere only -- a
point well taken,  however MHB98 was also derived from NH data yet
remarkably resembles the Mann "global" data Sandvik used.



Also -- Take a look at the period between 1000 and 1800 in both
reconstructions. Is it even the least bit feasible that averaging southern
hemisphere data into the latter would produce the former?



Or that UNEP strived to present the facts honestly?


Not Man Made -- Mann Made



One of McIntyre's chief complaints when auditing MHB98 was Mann's refusal to
provide his data, methods and source code.



The Hockey Team's most dreaded opposing goaltender has been reporting the
same deceptiveness from Briffa, who for years refused to release his Yamal
measurement data.    This, despite the fact that HS-defending papers relying
solely on Yamal continued to be published in major science journals.



But last year, Briffa used the data in a paper he published in the
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Journal.



As the journal adheres to its strict data archiving rules, McIntyre
convinced one of its editors to help get Briffa's data released.  And late
last month, the data was indeed published at CRU.



Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that
Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting
records not friendly to their position.



In fact, when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader
dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately
dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant
trend in the 20th century whatsoever!



In Steve's new graph, below, the Red represents the original 12 cherry
picked Yamal trees, while the Black incorporates the broader Polar Ural
dataset.

Any questions whether or not global warming is Mann made?


Inhofe was right


The public's belief in manmade climate change doesn't hang on its grasp of
geophysics or thermodynamics.



Technical explanations of positive feedbacks and radiative forcings, read by
few and understand by fewer still, aren't likely to foster acceptance of a
new energy tax that will dramatically raise the price of literally every
facet of human life.



Let's get real -- even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on what
caused modern warming.



But alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that
warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the
missing hot spot,  laughably  mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2
/Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly
obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.

And without the Hockey Stick's counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century
warming, climate crisis peddlers' credibility levels are reduced to those of
used car salesmen.



Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd
premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either
direction.



So they cheat.

And they lie.

And they have from the very beginning.



In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine:



"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary
scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any
doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between
being effective, and being honest."



Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC's TAR, the same
UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.



In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre
whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-related
scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly:





"The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which
environmental activists and government representatives are setting the
agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging
protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign
barrow."



Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I'd say that about sums it up.



Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla)
rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax
ever perpetrated on the American people."



Let's make damned sure it doesn't become the most expensive.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html




--B_3416066309_957679
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>The Mann and the Hockey Stick</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:14.0px'>Abracadabr=
a, &nbsp;No More Medi&aelig;val Warm Period!<BR>
<BR>
The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick<BR>
<BR>
October 5 2009<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
QUOTE: when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader <BR>
dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately <=
BR>
dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant <=
BR>
trend in the 20th century whatsoever!<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
QUOTE: Let's get real - even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on =
<BR>
what caused modern warming.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
QUOTE: alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced <=
BR>
that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the=
 <BR>
missing hot spot, &nbsp;laughably &nbsp;mistaken climate models, 800 year C=
O2 <BR>
/Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly <BR>
obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the <B=
R>
majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and <BR>
regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
But in the past week or so, it's become more apparent than ever that those =
<BR>
who've accused the international organization of politicizing science and <=
BR>
manipulating data have been right all along.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite <BR>
propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous &quot;Hock=
ey <BR>
Stick Graph.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium's <B=
R>
global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has <B=
R>
been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented =
<BR>
and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to=
 <BR>
languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as <BR>
gospel by all manner of proselytizers.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN =
<BR>
compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that <B=
R>
promise to be the Hockey Stick's (HS) long overdue epitaph.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart's fraudulence, but =
<BR>
also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders an=
d <BR>
leading UN sponsors.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is =
<BR>
in order.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The Real Inconvenient Truth<BR>
<BR>
Prior to the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the accepted depictio=
n <BR>
of the prior millennium's warmth was that published in the panel's 1990 <BR=
>
maiden assessment. Specifically -- global temperatures had fluctuated <BR>
drastically over the period. This schematic, taken from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c=
, <BR>
clearly demonstrates the IPCC &quot;consensus&quot; of the time:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice <BR=
>
cores and historic documents bear that position out.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Indeed, it's abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, <=
BR>
over 14,000 years ago, the Earth's climate has undergone multi-century <BR>
swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable <BR>
rapidity.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past <BR>
millennium.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), =
<BR>
as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the <BR>
previous epoch -- the Dark Ages -- to levels several degrees warmer than <B=
R>
today.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850. <B=
R>
This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures, <BR>
corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest=
 <BR>
temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three, The Maunder Minimum=
 <BR>
1645-1710.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And then began the modern warming period, which, by the way, many scientist=
s <BR>
believe ended with the millennium itself.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Given these natural shifts over the past 1000 years, it's certainly not <BR=
>
surprising that after a period of cooling, which followed a period of <BR>
warming, we'd again enter a period of warming.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And that, of course, presented quite the quandary to opportunists hell-bent=
 <BR>
on blaming warming on industrial revolution-triggered atmospheric CO2 <BR>
increases.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Something had to be done to convince the world that modern warming was <BR>
unprecedented and could therefore only be explained by something unnatural,=
 <BR>
specifically -- the &quot;Greenhouse Effect.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And something was.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The End of a Warming Era<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment &amp; Public Wo=
rks <BR>
Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma <BR=
>
geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled &quot;an astonishing email from a ma=
jor <BR>
researcher in the area of climate change&quot; who told him that &quot;we h=
ave to get <BR>
rid of the Medieval Warm Period.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In June of this year, piece, Deming identified the year of that email as <B=
R>
1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month's Global Climate <B=
R>
Change Impacts in the United States report.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck - which Prof. Deming didn't <=
BR>
deny in an email response -- who would later also serve as an IPCC lead <BR=
>
author.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed &quot=
;get <BR>
rid of the Medieval Warm Period,&quot; was featured prominently in the subs=
equent <BR>
2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the <BR>
highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political =
<BR>
attention.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This, the original and by far most ubiquitous version of the HS graph, was =
<BR>
derived from a 1998 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcol=
m <BR>
K. Hughes (MBH98).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
It was promptly met with challenges to both its proxy data and statistical =
<BR>
analysis methodology.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Of these, various papers by two Canadians -- statistician Stephen McIntyre =
<BR>
and economist Ross McKitrick -- stood out in dispelling the AGW-supporting =
<BR>
hockey-stick shape arrived at by MBH, claiming it the result of severe data=
 <BR>
defects and flawed calculations, particularly an invalid principal componen=
t <BR>
analysis.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists <BR=
>
tendered a handful of supporting studies.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or <BR>
supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the &quot;Hockey Team.&qu=
ot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith <BR=
>
Briffa of Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs,=
 <BR>
derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as=
 <BR>
supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th century <BR>
warming.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published, <=
BR>
congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupporte=
d <BR>
by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa's.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on <BR>
principle.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Which in no way dilutes this plain truth:<BR>
<BR>
By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria =
<BR>
in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient <BR>
Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof =
<BR>
of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of =
<BR>
science.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report <=
BR>
(AR4) -- notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as <B=
R>
lead authors - give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from th=
e <BR>
SPM?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
That is -- for the moment.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Desperate Times Call For Disparate Actions<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Given the current economic and political climate, it's not surprising that =
<BR>
the globe's climate ranks dead last when Americans are asked to name the <B=
R>
&quot;most important issue facing the country right now.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Needless to say, that's an uncomfortable position for the Greenhouse Gas <B=
R>
Team, what with a Senate Climate Bill promising even more government contro=
l <BR>
than its House counterpart at the plate and the December Copenhagen Climate=
 <BR>
Summit on deck.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Accordingly, on September 24th, in a transparently desperate effort to stok=
e <BR>
the coals, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its <BR=
>
Climate Change Science Compendium 2009.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The eco-plea opens with these words from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:<=
BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
&quot;The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is =
<BR>
happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see <B=
R>
catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine,=
 <BR>
and the loss of up to a third of the world's plant and animal species.&quot=
;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Amazing.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
But the frantic hype of this call-to-pointless-action quickly segues to <BR=
>
blatant lies just three sentences later when Ban states &quot;that climate =
change <BR>
is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by <BR>
scientists.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
It would appear the Sec-Gen believes that the cooling temperatures the new =
<BR>
millennium issued in have somehow escaped everyone's notice.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Imagine the uphill battle he'll face should predictions of the U.S. <BR>
Northeast suffering its coldest winter in a decade due to a weak El Nino <B=
R>
come true.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
So it wasn't all that shocking to spot this undeniably dramatic graph on <B=
R>
only the fifth of this end-is-near report's 75 pages.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The striking chart is marked as Figure 1.3: Correlation between temperature=
 <BR>
and CO2. &nbsp;As its title suggests, it attempts to plot atmospheric CO2 <=
BR>
concentrations and mean global temperature during the past millennium.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Notice anything vaguely familiar about the temperature plot in red?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Why, it's our old friend, Mr. Hockey Stick - apparently having sat for a bi=
t <BR>
of a makeover.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Interestingly enough, this reconstruction wasn't lifted from prior IPCC <BR=
>
assessments, or, for that matter, any UN entity at all.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
No, the source was actually a graphic posted to Wikimedia in 2005 by Hanno =
<BR>
Sandvik, a Norwegian research biologist. &nbsp;Sandvik cited two data sourc=
es for <BR>
his temperature plot - a 2004 paper by Jones and Mann (abracadabra - no mor=
e <BR>
MWP) for 1000-1880, and, for the remainder, &quot;instrumental records publ=
ished <BR>
on the web&quot; by Jones, Parker, Osborn and - wait for it .. Briffa.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
So the chart the UN climate experts used to sell the CO2 -&deg;C connection=
 to <BR>
an increasingly skeptical public was pulled from Wiki, crafted by an unknow=
n <BR>
biologist, conveniently ends about the same year warming ended, and based o=
n <BR>
a debunked temperature reconstruction.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
It would therefore appear they consider Sanvik quite the unsung authority.<=
BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Yet I wonder whether these geniuses are aware of this 2006 graphic, also <B=
R>
from Sandvik, and plotting northern hemisphere temperatures over the past <=
BR>
2000 years.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This one cites 2005 data published by Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko=
, <BR>
Karl&eacute;n, and Lauritzen as its source and paints a somewhat different =
picture. <BR>
Hello MWP and LIA, where've you been?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Any guesses whether or not UNEP would have used Sandvik's chart had his <BR=
>
temperature dataset been from Moberg et al. rather than Mann et al.?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I contacted Hanno Sandvik a week ago last Saturday and asked him essentiall=
y <BR>
that same question.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
He responded that he was unaware of the UNEP Compendium and therefore had <=
BR>
&quot;no idea which graphics they may have chosen.&quot; &nbsp;He also poin=
ted out that <BR>
while Mann's was global data, Mobergs was northern hemisphere only -- a <BR=
>
point well taken, &nbsp;however MHB98 was also derived from NH data yet <BR=
>
remarkably resembles the Mann &quot;global&quot; data Sandvik used.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Also -- Take a look at the period between 1000 and 1800 in both <BR>
reconstructions. Is it even the least bit feasible that averaging southern =
<BR>
hemisphere data into the latter would produce the former?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Or that UNEP strived to present the facts honestly?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Not Man Made -- Mann Made<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
One of McIntyre's chief complaints when auditing MHB98 was Mann's refusal t=
o <BR>
provide his data, methods and source code.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The Hockey Team's most dreaded opposing goaltender has been reporting the <=
BR>
same deceptiveness from Briffa, who for years refused to release his Yamal =
<BR>
measurement data. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This, despite the fact that HS-defendin=
g papers relying <BR>
solely on Yamal continued to be published in major science journals.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
But last year, Briffa used the data in a paper he published in the <BR>
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Journal.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
As the journal adheres to its strict data archiving rules, McIntyre <BR>
convinced one of its editors to help get Briffa's data released. &nbsp;And =
late <BR>
last month, the data was indeed published at CRU.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that <BR=
>
Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omittin=
g <BR>
records not friendly to their position.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In fact, when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader <BR=
>
dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately <=
BR>
dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant <=
BR>
trend in the 20th century whatsoever!<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In Steve's new graph, below, the Red represents the original 12 cherry <BR>
picked Yamal trees, while the Black incorporates the broader Polar Ural <BR=
>
dataset.<BR>
<BR>
Any questions whether or not global warming is Mann made?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Inhofe was right<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The public's belief in manmade climate change doesn't hang on its grasp of =
<BR>
geophysics or thermodynamics.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Technical explanations of positive feedbacks and radiative forcings, read b=
y <BR>
few and understand by fewer still, aren't likely to foster acceptance of a =
<BR>
new energy tax that will dramatically raise the price of literally every <B=
R>
facet of human life.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Let's get real -- even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on what <=
BR>
caused modern warming.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
But alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that=
 <BR>
warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the <BR>
missing hot spot, &nbsp;laughably &nbsp;mistaken climate models, 800 year C=
O2 <BR>
/Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly <BR>
obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.<BR>
<BR>
And without the Hockey Stick's counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century=
 <BR>
warming, climate crisis peddlers' credibility levels are reduced to those o=
f <BR>
used car salesmen.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd <BR>
premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either <B=
R>
direction.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
So they cheat.<BR>
<BR>
And they lie.<BR>
<BR>
And they have from the very beginning.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
&quot;To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary <BR=
>
scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any <B=
R>
doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between <=
BR>
being effective, and being honest.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC's TAR, the same=
 <BR>
UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre <B=
R>
whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-relate=
d <BR>
scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
&quot;The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which <B=
R>
environmental activists and government representatives are setting the <BR>
agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging <BR>
protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign =
<BR>
barrow.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I'd say that about sums it up.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla)=
 <BR>
rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the &quot;greatest=
 hoax <BR>
ever perpetrated on the American people.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Let's make damned sure it doesn't become the most expensive.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un=
_climate_reports_they_lie.html">http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_cl=
imate_reports_they_lie.html</a><BR>
</U></FONT><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>


--B_3416066309_957679--